You see, I long to dash forward, flaming sword in hand, to champion President Obama’s healthcare plan. Every day I get e-mails from Health Care for America Now, Organizing for America, MoveOn.org and similar groups urging me to write my Congressman, attend a town-hall meeting, host a gathering. But how can I speak knowledgeably about a plan that does not yet exist and in which the parameters keep shifting?

Pollitt yearns for an army of Barack Obama Thugs (hereinafter, B.O.T.s) “who swarmed the country less than a year ago” to forgo their infatuation with “Obama’s charisma” and go to town halls as organized groups to confront what she surmises, incorrectly, as the fake anger of “ignorant” people allegedly organized by right wing groups.

We’ll forgo comment on the hypocrisy of the Dimocratic Left calling forth non-existent armies to organize and battle what they deride as “astroturf” efforts. We will however discuss the “astroturf”.

Unlike genuine grassroots activism which tends to be money-poor but people-rich, astroturf campaigns are typically people-poor but cash-rich. Funded heavily by corporate largesse, they use sophisticated computer databases, telephone banks and hired organizers to rope less-informed activists into sending letters to their elected officials or engaging in other actions that create the appearance of grassroots support for their client’s cause.

[Hypocrisy Alert: Bob Beckel (Barack Obama Thug pretending to be disinterested commentator during the primaries) the “liberal” commentator on Fox News attacks the “mobs” protesting the Obama health care scam as “astroturf”. Beckel admits he was an “astroturf” operative but he leaves out one of the crowning achievements of his firm’s astroturfing.

[snip] defeat the Clinton administration’s proposed health care reform, through a front group called “Rx Partners” created by the Beckel Cowan PR firm, and the Coalition for Health Insurance Choices, created by public relations consultant Blair Childs.”]

* * * * *

The pro-Obama, cash-rich, people-poor, Hopium addled B.O.T.s do not care that they are pushing something they don’t know the contents of. Barack Obama and the B.O.T.s are back to lying and fear-mongering. Obama says:

“Now is the hard part — because the history is clear — every time we come close to passing health insurance reform, the special interests fight back with everything they’ve got,” Obama told a town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., on Tuesday. “They use their influence. They use their political allies to scare and mislead the American people. They start running ads. This is what they always do.”

Obama lied and fear-mongered during the campaign about Hillary and even about John McCain’s health care plan. This Obama batch of lies was debunked by FactCheck:

These claims are false, and based on a single newspaper report that says no such thing. McCain’s policy director states unequivocally that no benefit cuts are envisioned. McCain does propose substantial “savings” through such means as cutting fraud, increased use of information technology in medicine and better handling of expensive chronic diseases. Obama himself proposes some of the same cost-saving measures. We’re skeptical that either candidate can deliver the savings they promise, but that’s no basis for Obama to accuse McCain of planning huge benefit cuts.

A new coalition on Thursday launched $12 million in television ads to support President Barack Obama’s health reform plan, in the opening wave of a planned tens of millions of dollars this fall.

The new group, funded largely by the pharmaceutical industry, is called Americans for Stable Quality Care. It includes some odd bedfellows: the American Medical Association, FamiliesUSA, the Federation of American Hospitals, PhRMA and SEIU, the service employees’ union. [snip]

The group is likely to be the biggest spender in support of health reform. The campaign will serve as a counterweight to the critics at town meetings, which are getting saturation news coverage while Congress is out of town.

In a reversal from former President Bill Clinton’s 1993-94 health care debacle, the group’s campaign is likely to mean that White House supporters keep the upper hand on the airwaves.

Bill Clinton’s genuine health care reform plans Put People First so Big Pharma and Big Insurance fought with astroturf campaigns. Barack Obama Is The Enemy Of Health Care Reform so the Death-Eaters will support him with cash-rich, people-poor, advertising wars:

PhRMA’s participation is key, because the group has promised to kick in as much as $150 million for advertising and grass-roots activity to help pass the president’s plan.

“What DOES health insurance reform mean for you? It means you can’t be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition or dropped if you get sick. It means putting health care decisions in the hands of you and your doctor. It means lower costs, a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, tough new rules to cut waste and red tape and a focus on PREVENTING illness before it strikes. So what does health insurance reform really mean? Quality, affordable care you can count on.”

The official provides a little more back story: “These groups were part of a looser coalition that started back in January that focused on the links between health reform and the economy. Now that the debate is turning on what health reform means for the individual, they felt the need to launch a new front that addresses some of those particulars while debunking some of the myths that are floating around. Plus, these groups recognize that their collective voice packs more punch than if they were to just speak out individually.”

The ad was made by GMMB, which was a lead agency for Obama for America. Partners include Frank Greer and Jim Margolis.

The ads do not state that there is no actual plan. The ads do not state that there is no actual plan nor is there a dollar figure for how much the cost will be for someone with a pre-existing condition. It’s quite possible that a plan will emerge that provides access but with such high cost the insurance is simply not there.

Americans could find themselves in a cash for clunkers program that serves money monthly to companies that provide zero services.

Perhaps a plan will emerge that will do all sorts of wonderful things like cut administrative and medical costs down to pennies a year and provide every American with plans worth multi-millions of dollars with Hollywood spa-like hospitals, as well as bring century long health to all Americans along with lovely skin, strength, stamina, bright smiles, silken John Edwards hair, swimmer/gymnast builds, eat-what-you-will-diets without weight gain, and an end to disease and pain – all with lower taxes and a vanished debt and surpluses instead of deficits.

For now, Americans wait and watch and attend town halls – in righteous anger and distrustful vigilance.

107 thoughts on “The Death-Eaters”

Just as OO over exposure is beginning to fall on its face, the ads for the reform will also. The American public got really tired of the ads in there area before each primary, and really fed up before the General election.

I think they read the email from their friends more than the notice the ads on TV.

“politics of fear” is obama’s middle name. I just have one question: How much money is being spent by bambi and his dimwitted dims to push through his poisoned health care plan? How much for publicity, travel, bussing in hypocrites?

This is a bit long but I thought everyone might find this info useful.
Even the ACLU is questioning BO’s ‘snitchline.”

Since 2000, it has been the policy of the federal government not to use such technology. But the OMB is now seeking to change that policy and is considering the use of cookies for tracking web visitors across multiple sessions and storing their unique preferences and surfing habits. Though this is a major shift in policy, the announcement of this program consists of only a single page from the federal register that contains almost no detail.
“This is a sea change in government privacy policy,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Without explaining this reversal of policy, the OMB is seeking to allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government website. Until the OMB answers the multitude of questions surrounding this policy shift, we will continue to raise our strenuous objections.”
The use of cookies allows a website to differentiate between users and build a database of each user’s viewing habits and the information they share with the site. Since web surfers frequently share information like their name or email address (if they’ve signed up for a service) or search request terms, the use of cookies frequently allows a user’s identity and web surfing habits to be linked. In addition, websites can allow third parties, such as advertisers, to also place cookies on a user’s computer.
“Americans rely on the information from the federal government to research politics, medical issues and legal requirements. The OMB is now asking to retain the personal and identifiable information we leave behind,” said Christopher Calabrese, Counsel for the ACLU Technology and Liberty Project. “No American should have to sacrifice privacy or risk surveillance in order to access free government information. No policy change should be adopted without wide ranging debate including information on the restrictions and uses of cookies as well as impact on privacy.”

*#$#$###$#$#$#$#$#$#$###$#$$$$$
I absolutely believe this. Even Teddy Roosevelt said @ the turn of the century, I guess turn of the century before last, that the president really had very little power, that there were a group of the very wealthy that ran the World.

How much money do you need to be in it you think because my financial guy kind of let it slip one day that his wife, all of 28 years old, had a trust worth over 200 million. I know he is from old money and a great deal of it, just didn’t know about her background. All I knew prior was that she taught kinder for a year… but I got to thinking that she had siblings, her parents were still alive, the family must have billions. He knows the usual GS crowd princes by first name.

The sad part of all this is that we look like a charity case I am sure. He is a very decent guy, really salt of the earth. No pretense. It was a slip and it came after being with him since 2003-2008. I actually had a real hard time with it after he told us. I can not wrap my mind around that kind of money.

I worked with a couple of ‘closet’ heiresses in the urban school system.

After attacking the staff, destroying morale and generally causing chaos and confusion, they moved on after a year or so, back to their rich-girl digs, puffed up with pride at how they’d given back to the poor.

We all hated them. It was one of the only points of agreement among a staff otherwise divided mostly by heritage. There was the Honduran contingent, the Domincan contingent, the Italian contingent, the Puerto Rican and of course the AA contingent with many subsets interspersed

It seems that, despite all the media attention lavished on e-mail appeals to his supporters, not everyone pushing for President Obama’s embattled healthcare reform plan these warm August days is an idealistic volunteer in it for the sake of helping move the country forward and gaining medical attention for millions of uninsured Americans.

The website’s large-type headline announces: “Work to Pass Obama’s Healthcare Plan and Get Paid to Do it! $10-15 hr!”

It’s a web ad on Craigslist: “You can work for change. Join motivated staff around the country working to make change happen. You can make great friends and money along the way. Earn $400-$600 a week.”

So both sides appear to have paid lobbyists in this colossal summertime struggle for public opinion and control of the multi-billions flowing into the nation’s burdened healthcare system.

The ad links to the Boston-based Fund for the Public Interest, an umbrella organization that rounds up people to round up support, money and signatures for all kinds of campaigns, including healthcare reform and the environment.

It’s hiring and assigning canvassers to work in at least 28 states, including California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Oregon, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New Jersey.

“Now is our chance to make health care work,” says the ad to recruit recruiters in support for the president’s proposals. “America’s health care system is broken. Health care costs are spiraling out of control, throwing families, businesses and government into financial crisis.

“Families are worried their health coverage won’t be there when they need it. Our country can’t afford to wait for health reform that keeps costs down and protects consumers”

It sounds much like the president at one of his healthcare town halls; (next stops, Montana and Colorado). “We’re fighting for healthcare that will protect families’ financial health, lay out a clear path for all Americans to afford healthcare, and improve patient safety and quality care.

“Help make change happen,” pleads the advertisement. “If you’re good with people and feel passionately about the environment and human rights, you’ll make money working for the Fund.”

These Dimocrats are really stupid. Smart politicians do not insult the general populace – ever. But the Dimocrats just keep on insulting. Voters are bitter, xenophobic, clingy, gun-toting, dangerous, political terrorist, racist, KKK, un-American, Nazi, evil-mongering mobsters.

I think the people have been called everything short of a salami sandwich by these idiots. Who taught them their governing and persuading skills, Triumph the Insult Dog?

WASHINGTON – Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly….[…]”

Also from BP. Don’t worry, it will make it back in the plan @ a later date I am sure…
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

more at the link:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_end_of_life_2

and just how in the tank is yahoo for Bambi? right on top of that article has a pic of Palin with a link to “Fact Check: No “death panel” in health care bill”…pray tell Fact Check, if there is no death panel then what have the senators just removed from the healthcare bill?

“I had been on the cell phone getting a series of questions answered,” Jackson Lee said. “I don’t know why (Republicans think) it’s so challenging. I happen to be able to think, listen and maybe even talk at the same time.”

“I had been on the cell phone getting a series of questions answered,” Jackson Lee said. “I don’t know why (Republicans think) it’s so challenging. I happen to be able to think, listen and maybe even talk at the same time.”
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

This is the mentality we have to deal with. Just show her the $$$$$

I know, I know she supported Hillary, but she has sunk while Hillary has risen!

Well I personally like to be looked at when I’m talking to someone. Jackson Lee wasn’t looking at the woman in question. If anything she looked iritated that she couldn’t hear what was being said on the phone at the same time. Would it have killed her to let it go to voicemail or at worst excused herself to the speaker answer the phone and put the caller on hold?

It would be nice if she took responsibility for her rudeness, however it looks like bambi’s inconsideration is rubbing off on her and a few others.

Odinga is an idiot, but all in all, Hillary’s trip to Africa continues to be a success.

————————–

Preaching reform, Clinton wins African hearts

By DONNA BRYSON

JOHANNESBURG — In Liberia, Hillary Clinton brought out the crowds despite torrential rain. In Congo, she came away deeply shaken from a meeting with rape victims. Kenya’s prime minister said Africa didn’t need lectures from the West about democracy, but Africa got one anyway.

At home, the U.S. secretary of state’s visit may have been overshadowed by the aftermath of her husband’s mission to North Korea to bring home two imprisoned U.S. journalists. But on her seven-nation Africa tour, ending Friday with a stopover in the West African island republic of Cape Verde, she made one splash after another.

Coupled with Barack Obama’s visit last month, the two trips to Africa were the earliest into an administration by any secretary of state or president, underlining Washington’s pledges to pay more attention to the continent.

In the U.S., the headline-making moment of the trip was her testy response to a question about Bill Clinton. But in Africa, it quickly became a footnote. What people wanted to hear was support for democracy, clean government and ending its many civil wars.

Clinton’s ambitious itinerary resembled those of China’s foreign minister, who makes extensive annual tours of his country’s allies on the continent. But where China tends to sidestep the issues of corruption democracy, Clinton confronted them head-on.

Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, speaking hours before Clinton arrived, said Africa did not need to be lectured about democracy. After they met, she did just that. “The absence of strong and effective democratic institutions has permitted ongoing corruption, impunity, politically motivated violence and a lack of respect for a rule of law,” Clinton said. “These conditions … are continuing to hold Kenya back.”

Odinga switched to a more conciliatory tone, saying African countries could learn from Clinton’s example when she conceded defeat to Obama during the U.S. presidential primaries.
“That is a lesson Africa needs to learn seriously,” he said. “In Africa, in many countries, elections are never won, they are only rigged. The losers never accept that they lost. If we do this, we will be able to develop democracy truly in the African continent.”

In Angola, she told Foreign Minister Assuncao Afonso dos Anjos that his country needed to write a new constitution, prosecute human rights crimes and hold a proper presidential election.

“So, Mr. Minister, we have our work cut out for us,” she said.

And in Nigeria, Africa’s biggest oil producer, she said “the disconnect between Nigeria’s wealth and its poverty is a failure of governance at the federal, state and local level.”

To Africa’s reformers, often an embattled minority, these were heartening words.

Emma Ezeazu, who campaigns for free and fair elections in his native Nigeria, said Clinton’s visit showed that U.S. officials “are becoming more pro-active in their relationship with Nigeria, in particular on the subject of governance and democracy. They are paying more attention.”

Tiseke Kasambala, a Johannesburg-based researcher for Human Rights Watch, commended her grasp of human rights abuses in Africa — not just the headline-makers, like Zimbabwe and Congo, but the lesser publicized offenders such as Angola.

In Goma, a Congo town in a region ravaged by gang rapes amid continuing fighting between army and rebels, Clinton announced $17 million in American aid to help the victims.

She toured a squalid camp of 18,000 refugees and heard one of them tell her, “We really want to return home, that’s why we are asking America to help stop the fighting.”

“That’s why I’m here,” Clinton replied. “I want you to be able to go home.”

In Cape Town, South Africa, big, joyous crowds turned out for her at a housing project. In Liberia, founded in 1847 by freed American slaves, rain-drenched crowds waved U.S. and Liberian flags at Clinton’s motorcade.

The crowds in Nigeria and Angola were fewer, but community and religious leaders seemed excited just to be with Clinton and be heard by her.

Nancy Kachingwe, a Malawian with the development group ActionAid, applauded Clinton’s “very strong emphasis around women’s rights.”

Some of former President George W. Bush’s Africa initiatives, particularly on AIDS, have been widely praised in Africa. But there were also sharp differences over world trade, global warming, and over the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism strategy.

Washington wants to buy Africa’s oil and gain access to its markets, and fears instability in places like Somalia could fuel anti-U.S. terrorism. Clinton won points by stressing that as the U.S. pursues its interests, it sees the virtue of “working with and listening to our friends and allies, and creating not a multipolar world, but a multi-partner world.”

Kachingwe said what matters now is the follow-up.

“There will be a positive impact” from Clinton’s trip, she said. “But somewhere along the way, we do need to see … what’s going to come to keep the momentum going.”

August 13th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
That chart was amazing. OO rating started lower than Jim Carter, and we all know ho well that went. Carter just continued on a downward slide. There were some slight up turns, but not enough to fix the trend. Bill Clinton was the opposite, regardless of what what happening in his life, he went above 50% and stayed there.

It kind of looks like they had high expectations of Carter and he failed, and low of Clinton and he succeeded.

OO started in the middle and really has continued to go steadily down. Now when they pass that health crxp, really what ever they can pieced together, just to say they passed something I am sure he will get a bump. But depending on the economic news, if it continues to be poor, I think it will revert to its downward tread

I cannot not remember, did the party run Carter again, or did they run someone else and they lost? I cannot remember.

If this has already been posted, forgive me, but this column is spot on:

Clinton in the Congo, and the real message gets lost
by Nancy Johnston
THE BALTIMORE SUN
August 13, 2009

The UN reports that there have been 200,000 acts of sexual violence in the Congo since 1998, 65 percent against children. Since January, more than half of the thousands of rapes reported were perpetrated by the Congolese army, according to Human Rights Watch. That is to say nothing of the more than 2 million displaced citizens, and 5.4 million who have died in connection with the war waged against rebels backed by Rwanda and Uganda.

An AP report which detailed the $17 million of aid the U.S. has pledge to end such violence described the scene at a refugee camp Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited.

“Residents told Clinton that women and young girls and boys are often victimized by rape when they leave the camp to gather wood or tend to outside gardens. One camp official said a young boy had been raped on Monday.

“One of the two victims Clinton met had been gang-raped after her husband and four children were killed. The other, eight months pregnant at the time, lost her baby and was found by hospital workers in a forest where she had stumbled.”

There are no words for the horrors these people have faced in the past decade.

But if you’ve watched the news those horrific statistics and stories didn’t register. That’s because Secretary Clinton’s umbrage over a question about a Chinese loan offer became the story, instead of the corruption of officials and the sexual warfare being waged throughout the country.

At a news conference, a student in the audience asks Ms. Clinton what Mr. Clinton thinks about a disputed Chinese contract, and she reacted harshly. It’s unclear what the student was thinking — did he misspeak, meaning to ask for President Obama’s opinion, instead of Bill Clinton’s? Did the translator ask the wrong question? Did one or the other of them think it appropriate to question our top diplomat about her husband’s opinion, rather than her own? But the point is that the narrative has switched from life-and-death issues that everyone should be united against, to another “Shrill Hill” sound bite.

“Poor Hillary,” her detractors and supporters both say, “She was just so tired! And it must be so hard to see Obama light up the world in his travels; and that Bill, saving those journalists from North Korea, stealing her thunder.”

To which I say, give me a break.

Hillary Clinton has been a professional politician, a U.S. senator, a presidential candidate and she is now the secretary of state of the United States of America. She has nothing to prove to the commentators and the pundits; her job is to advise the president on foreign affairs and enforce the policies of the USA.

She was not a petulant child craving recognition, nor does she need your defense. Secretary Clinton had a point to make, and it was this: I am the representative of the most powerful country in the world, and you will respect both my office and me as a human being. While you’re at it, why don’t you show that same respect to the women of the Congo?

In a country where being female might be a death sentence and rape is used as a weapon against the population, this is not a point to be made lightly. Perhaps it wasn’t diplomatic, but it was entirely appropriate for Clinton to defend her position and her dignity in a place where so many wives and daughters have no defense or recourse.

So don’t pity Hillary, who in your mind has to compete with her powerful husband and boss. Pity the millions of Congolese who are suffering. And get alongsde her, whether as a feminist or a human being: There’s plenty to find offensive in this situation without falling back to either Clinton hatred or misogynistic punchlines.

Paula, good article. Nice to read a good article about Secretary Clinton. We really lost a potentially great president, when the nomination was stolen from her. Still irks me. BO is turning out worse than I ever imagined. I knew it would be bad, but this is horrendous.

It is amazing how long this item remains in the news cycle…Bambi making fun of the special olympics got about a days notice…
————————————————
If you are seeking fairness then it is as you say amazing. But if my premise is accurate then this is not about fairness. It is about the promotion of a corporate brand by big media and the simultaneous effort to obliterate any competing brand. If it were otherwise, they would provide continuous coverage to the fine work Hillary is doing, and some context to these comments as you see above. If it were my shop, alot of these media people would be fired. I would make painful examples of Milbank and Cilezza. If they wanted to sue me, I would tell them be my guest but you two howler monkeys are gone. If FOX wants to be a credible source it would have to get religion too. As it is how can anyone take it seriously. Murdock began his career as a tabloid journalist and an acorn does not fall far from the tree I guess.

Clarification> with big media it is about promoting brand obama. With fox it is a simple case of pushing buttons. In fact that is about all they ever do. They never seem to connect the dots, or make the case air tight. They have some real bank benchers, but they are better that the front benchers at msnbc, or that smirking dullard of the century John Steward. There is nothing worse than a comic who is not funny.

This is exactly why we have this POTUS, Africa. The powers that run both republican and democrat want to be able to make more money for themselves in Africa. They are doing this by saying they are really concerned by the rape and pillage of Africa, when in essence, this has been going on for years and they did nothing. They did not need Africa then, they wanted Iraq and Bush delievered that. Bambi is to deliver Africa.
When will people beging to realize the people that own this country don’t give a crap about anyone but themselves.

I do admire Hillary for trying to do something about the situation, but I doubt anything will be done.

The word is spreading…. The following snip of text and link provided by RNC weekly email with alternate headline “Can You Hear Me Now”:

…Who would have believed that this politician celebrated, above all, for his eloquence and capacity to connect with voters would end up as president proving so profoundly tone deaf? A great many people is the answer—the same who listened to those speeches of his during the campaign, searching for their meaning.

It took this battle over health care to reveal the bloom coming off this rose, but that was coming. It began with the spectacle of the president, impelled to go abroad to apologize for his nation—repeatedly. It is not, in the end, the demonstrators in those town-hall meetings or the agitations of his political enemies that Mr. Obama should fear. It is the judgment of those Americans who have been sitting quietly in their homes, listening to him.

I heard on the news this AM that BC is out campaigning for the fraud’s healthcare plan. Apparently he was quiet vocal about it.
He has Hillary out there meeting with Odingo, Odingo saying he did not need to be chastised by the West for his corrupt country. Odingo also saying that his country could learn alot by Hillary Clinton experience in elections, as she knew when she was defeated. He went on to say that the people in his country go on for years not realizing they were beaten.

Yes, Odingo maybe Hillary conceded, but her supporters have NEVER conceded victory to the fraudulent POTUS and the backlash of his nomination fraud, his election fraud, his whole corrupt government is coming down rather quickly NOW!

This Odingo should never be allowed to be a friend of the US government. I don’t want my tax dollars helping this idiot in any way.

Hundreds and thousands of Liberians lined up the streets of Monrovia to welcome US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The jubilant crowd defied the rains to be on the street.

That was Clinton’s final stop in the West African country of Liberia after visiting South Africa, Nigeria and Democratic Republic of Congo among others on her seven-nation African tour before returning to Washington.

She commended Liberia for its post-conflict progress. She also held talks with Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. The BBC reported that she was impressed how the economy was being rebuilt since the end of years of conflict in 2003. “Liberia is on the right track, as difficult as the path might be,” Clinton was reported to have said.

Clinton became the fifth US Secretary of state to visit that country since 1960. Liberia, a former settlement of freed slaves from the United States is considered as a very strong US allied. The two countries enjoyed strong bilateral relationship in the past but most Liberians say they are expecting more from US.

Alphonso Toweh, the manager of a local consultancy firm, told Xinhua that Liberia needs more American related business institutions in the country as a way of attracting American interest in Liberia’s post war reconstruction efforts, the Chinese news agency reported.

Toweh said: “I will expect that our president will be frank to tell Mrs. Clinton that it needs the US attention more than ever before and that the U.S. government should prioritize Liberia’s interest as its traditional friend in all aspects. We (Liberia) should not play any sycophancy role in this visit but we must tell America, our traditional friend, that it needs to do more for Liberia.”

Laurence Bropleh, Liberia’s information minister said at a press briefing on Wednesday according to the Liberian Daily Observer newspaper that Hillary’s visit is to reaffirm the US commitment to their country’s reconstruction process. The US has played major role in reforming the country’s security sectors after Liberia’s bloody civil war which ended few years back.

It was 1991, at the Banff Television Festival where, as the Star’s TV columnist, I was thrilled to be chatting with a journalistic hero, a man whose cred stretched back to the Vietnam War, a network show host, a big man on the small screen on both sides of the border.

I’d been in the job for a couple of years and, if I do say so myself, had made some waves in the broadcast biz with my reporting. Big Man was very complimentary, admitting he loved my insider gossip.

That’s when my (now ex-) husband joined us. Big Man and he were acquainted, as my former mate was himself a TV journalist, producer, director and writer of some note.

When Big Man realized who my husband was, he said, dead seriously, “Oh, now I know where you get all your information.”

“Yeah, right,” I snapped. “My husband really has time to do my homework for me.”

Which brings us to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, despite her education, background, brains, hard work, groundbreaking career and sheer grit in the face of the most persistent and consistent sexist attacks in memory, continues to be the target of media- generated discrimination.

This week, Clinton, nursing a broken elbow while on a gruelling tour through Africa, visiting some of the most hellish countries on Earth, places where thousands of women, children and even men are raped as spoils of war, failed to deflect a question in an acceptably girlie and gracious manner.

At a town hall with Congolese university students, she was asked, in a halting and a supposedly mistranslated way, her husband ex-President Bill Clinton’s opinion of the World Bank’s and China’s dealings in that country.

(Despite initial reports, subsequent analyses reveal that not only was Clinton in fact asked about her husband, a former Congolese basketball star Dikembe Mutombo was also asked for his opinion.)

“Wait, you want me to tell you what my husband thinks?” she replied, incredulous. “My husband is not the secretary of state. I am. So, you ask my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I’m not going to be channelling my husband.”

The subsequent stories and headlines described her reaction as “boiled over,” “outraged,” “unhinged,” “blew up,” just about every substitute for “shrieked shrewishly” you can find in a thesaurus.

But watch the video, which of course has gone viral, and you can see, not only does Clinton hesitate nearly 10 seconds before seeking clarification, her response is assertive, forceful.

Or at least that’s how it would have been described had she been a man.

But, of course, she would not have been asked that question had she been a man, now would she?

The coverage was so disrespectful one pundit even noted that she was having a bad hair day.

“It had gone all flat and straight, which puts any woman in a bad humor,” wrote Tina Brown, former editor of The New Yorker and Vanity Fair.

You mean it wasn’t PMS?

True, this media uproar is no more than just another example of the gotcha/trivia journalism all too common today, especially in the U.S.

But, when it comes to Clinton, there is a pattern. Remember how, during her run for the Democratic presidential nomination, her eyes got moist at one event, only to have the headlines describe a woman sobbing out of control?

Of course, because Clinton is taking a different tack from her weak, warmongering predecessors Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, a strategy focused on development and not defence, it’s not as newsnet-worthy as “mushroom clouds” and “smoking guns.”

And so, rather than report on her mission, and the Obama administration’s truly world-changing strategy of focusing on maternal health and women’s safety, the media give us reports on how Clinton’s work begins at home, with her husband.

SANTA MARIA, Cape Verde — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wrapped up her seven-nation tour of Africa on Friday with a brief stop in this palm-dotted island nation, which the U.S. government has hailed as an African success story. Clinton stayed overnight in Cape Verde and was scheduled to meet with Prime Minister Jose Maria Pereira Neves on Friday morning before returning to Washington.

The 11-day trip was aimed at emphasizing the Obama administration’s interest in Africa. Clinton pressed for good government and democratic reforms, bluntly criticizing such countries as Nigeria and Kenya for corruption.

But she also sought to emphasize positive examples, such as Cape Verde. This former Portuguese colony was a one-party state from its independence in 1975 until 1990 and was ranked one of the world’s poorest nations at the time. In recent years, the country has had a string of democratic elections and surging economic output, with an average 5.7 percent growth from 1996 to 2006.

Clinton flew to Cape Verde after spending most of a day in Liberia, which is struggling to rebuild from 14 years of civil war that ended in 2003. Clinton’s visit there was intended to provide a boost for Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Africa’s only democratically elected female leader, who has faced criticism lately for her support of Charles Taylor when he was plotting a coup in 1989.

Clinton received the warmest reception there of any country on her trip, with Liberians lining the roads in driving rain, waving tiny American flags. In a speech in the national legislature, Clinton brought Liberian lawmakers to their feet by stressing reconciliation — using her own political life as an example.

Clinton told the legislators that one of the questions she often faced was how she could go to work for President Obama after running against him in the Democratic primaries.

“Because we both love our country,” Clinton declared, as the legislators rose to their feet in thunderous applause and a man tooted a traditional horn. “It is that love every successful country has to inculcate in its people and its leaders.”

The speech was characteristic of how Clinton sought to use her own experiences — as a senator, a political candidate and a woman — to connect with her African audiences.

Clinton announced few new initiatives on her trip, which appeared aimed in part at allowing her to get to know African leaders. She echoed themes outlined in a speech last month by President Obama in Ghana: that democracy was essential to development and that the U.S. government would assist Africa with health and agricultural aid but could not solve its problems.

The trip’s successes, according to her aides, included meetings in South Africa that eased strained relations with the continent’s economic powerhouse, and the stop in Angola, aimed at intensifying ties with a rising oil power.

The emotional high point was a visit to war-wracked eastern Congo, where Clinton called for punishment for the soldiers, militiamen and others behind a near-epidemic of rape. She met with two rape victims, and choked up afterward as she promised to seek new ways to help such women, including providing $17 million for medical treatment and greater security.

But Clinton’s message was sometimes greeted with cynicism or annoyance. Kenyan politicians said they did not need “lectures” from U.S. politicians, and some said Clinton’s calls for more trade should be backed up by practical steps — such as decreasing U.S. subsidies for its farmers.

In the Congo, Clinton faced a skeptical audience of students who criticized U.S. policies on global warming and questioned whether the U.S. government would allow a ruler it didn’t like to stay in power in the country. One young woman demanded to know Clinton’s motivation in coming to the Congo.

“Are we inspiring your pity so much that you say, ‘I have to go and help these people?’ ” she asked.

Clinton responded tartly: “I will be very honest with you, we don’t need to do any of this.” Other African countries, she said, welcomed U.S. help.

At least on U.S. TV screens, Clinton’s message on her Africa trip was overshadowed by her angry retort to another student at the town-hall meeting, who inquired about her husband’s views of Chinese investment in the Congo. “My husband is not the secretary of state. I am!” Clinton shot back.

Cape Verde in 2005 received a $110 million development grant from the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a U.S. aid program, and U.S. officials say the country has spent the money effectively.

I like his honesty, the fact that he believes in compromise where the health care plan is concerned.

CHARLES MAHTESIAN | 8/14/09

Bill Clinton: ‘New era of progressive politics’

President Bill Clinton told an audience of liberal online activists Thursday evening that the nation has “entered a new era of progressive politics” that could last for decades if Democrats can pass ambitious measures such as health care reform and climate change.

In a nearly hour-long keynote address to the fourth annual Netroots Nation convention in Pittsburgh, a gathering of roughly 1,500 progressive bloggers and activists, Clinton said the nation—and public opinion—has dramatically changed in the 16 years since he took office. But he noted that President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress needed the support of the online community to achieve their agenda.

“We have entered a new era of progressive politics which, if we do it right, can last 30 or 40 years,” Clinton said. “America has rapidly moved to another place on a lot of these issues.”

Clinton warned against the dangers of failing to compromise on some elements of health care reform, calling for agreement on a plan that includes a handful of elements that have widespread public support and perhaps conceding on those that have little support among voters.

“I want us to be mindful we may need to take less than a full loaf,” he said. “We can’t be in the peanut gallery. We have to be actors. We can’t ask the President to go it alone. We can’t ask Congress to go it alone.”

Clinton had a similar message on climate change legislation.

“The President stuck his neck out here and the Congress stuck its neck out,” he said, “but we have to have a bill.”

Clinton, who has met several times over the past year with bloggers to discuss a range of topics, told the audience that he is an avid reader of blogs who supplements his research with material gleaned from them.

“I read a lot of your blogs on health care,” he said.

The speech, which was otherwise warmly received, was interrupted several times by shouts from the audience referring to his administration’s sanctioning of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays in the military and the former president’s signing of the “Defense of Marriage Act.”

Clinton responded with an impassioned defense of his actions and expressed regret.

“Nobody regrets how this was implemented any more than I do,” he said. “I hated what happened.”

Good Morning, you have been busy:
———————
The speech, which was otherwise warmly received, was interrupted several times by shouts from the audience referring to his administration’s sanctioning of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays in the military and the former president’s signing of the “Defense of Marriage Act.”

Clinton responded with an impassioned defense of his actions and expressed regret.

“Nobody regrets how this was implemented any more than I do,” he said. “I hated what happened.”
————————

And that is why BC has kept the people

I saw you posts on the media misrepresending HRC on the Africa Incident.

OK, SO WHERE WAS NARAL, NOW, EMILY’S LIST. I would have thought they would have jumped to her defense big time. They might as well disband. They are not earning their money. They might as well call themselves, the OO groups. IF OO DIRECT/BEATS US TO TAKE ACTION, OF COURSE WE WILL. They are the mouth piece for a male.

I agree about NARAL, NOW, and Emily’s List. They should be ashamed of themselves. And with the exception of a few noteworthy North American and international journalists of both genders, so should the people who call themselves responsible media.

Raila Odinga…Prime Minster of Kenya. Isn’t that Barack Obama’s “cousin” who ran for president, lost although DICK MORRIS was his campaign advisor. Didn’t Morris suggest a Million person march after Odinga’s defeat…causing much bloodshed.

So BO’s “cousin” is being negative toward Hillary Clinton…imagine that.

JanH, am I getting paronoid or what. I feel like they picked the worse pictures possible of the event (they like to portray HRC that way), and then of Sarah Palin, they really have a hard time getting a poor photo of her, so they use her beauty against her.

However, I am now seeing some unflattering photos of OO, which I did not think was possible for them to every publish. Does that suggest something?

ADMIN maybe we need an article on Jornalists, newspaper, Women’s Group, and grass roots effort that are really supporting women. What is the real track record out there, and it there anywhere I could join and send my money to that is truly for supporting women and women’s issues that is outside of a Political party?

Uppity Woman has a FABULOUS rant up on why Centrists are sick to death of this crap:

“We are witnessing what happens when far left (or far right) wing leaders meet up with Centrist America.

There are more centrists and independents in this country than there are in either of these off-the-cliff wings. They decide in the end.
They decided they were sick of George Bush crap and Jerry Falwell, dead or alive, and for SURE sick of that nutball Pat Roberston. They were given only two choices. Believe me, they wanted a third choice but these two horrible hijacked parties make sure that is never viable, and believe me, Centrists and Independents know the two parties are the culprits.

Given only two choices, they went for Obama because they were sick to death of the extremism of the previous 8 years. Now you are seeing that they are sick of the far left extremism as well. They don’t like not having a real choice, and they will make it known that they do NOT subscribe to extremism.

Both the hijacked republican and hijacked democratic parties had best understand. (I use small R and small D because, as a centrist, they do not deserve my respect): Centrist and Independent America is sick of this same crap every four or eight years. They no longer trust either of you. Not one bit.
Regressives AKA Neo Progressives AKA Regressives and Social Conservatives AKA Neo Conservatives AKA Theocrats and Religious Nutballs: The majority of America is NOT YOU. They are not only not YOU, they don’t want to be YOU and they never WILL be YOU. They want you to cut the crap and stop the social extremist shit and start being practical while minding your own damned business. We don’t want you in our bedrooms and we don’t want you in our bank accounts and personal information either. We reject Fascist Theocracies and we reject Totalitarian States. This is what both of you want to shove down our throats.
Centrists do not want to give money or rewards to rich bilkers and their thieving corporations. They also do not want to give money or rewards to lazy-assed slugs.

`snip`

“Congress, you are sinking fast just like your R predecessors did. And to you “R” opponents: you will sink fast again too if you keep up this extremist crap. We don’t want a Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank Socialist country and we don’t want a Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich Theocracy country. Stop pretending you represent America just because you SAY you do. You don’t. We are just STUCK voting for one of you, because we have no REAL choice. You will either Get It or you are going to play musical elected official chairs for LIFE. At least until the MAJORITY of centrists and independents of this country figure out how to circumvent your unconscienable blocking of a Centrist third party.”

I really do think that if 2010 goes south for the dims, the economy continues to limp along, our debt grows, and we get a piece of crap for a Health Reform bill (which we will), and the Dims have no more sense then they did when they ran Carter again, HRC should resign as SOS, and declare herself Independent. You would hear a great sigh of Jubiliatin from the centralist and Independents. They could entirely run their campaign on line with virtural TownHalls, and maybe even a Virtual convention to save money.

She could be sworn in with the bloggers and twitters standing by with there laptop wifi connected recording the event.

There are a lot of us out here who feel exactly the same as that Uppity Woman. Sick sick to death of the constant “small govt vs. big govt”, or “moral vs. immoral” ranting.

How about you f*ckers give us some transparent, ACCOUNTABLE, representative, non-robbing govt first, and THEN and only then we can all argue about how damn big or small it needs to be, hmmm?

Until they do that, everything else is just blowing smoke up our ass while they rob us blind and put us under bootheels, either in the name of The Collective or in the name of the Sweet Baby Jesus and The Flag. It’s still boot heels, either way.

I have not heard or seen Hillary’s speech concerning women’s rights in Africa. It is clear she was shaken by seeing the sexual abuse of women and some male children in Africa, so why did MSM choose not to show it.
I still to this day when I really feeling put upon by the male dominated society, I go to youtube and listen to Hillary’s speech in China in the 90′. My sister who is very anti-democrat after listening to that speech gave Hillary her do for women’s rights.

NEITHER PARTY wants a true classic liberal centrist in power. And BOTH will fight it to the death when that sort of common-sense governing rears it ugly head, every time. And the media will help them do it.

An independent-minded centrist is anathema to the Beltway political power-brokering wings on either side. It’s their worst nightmare.

LMAO! We just had the following exchange over on the Confluence, and it appears Axelrod has called out his astroturfers:

Tommie, on August 14th, 2009 at 10:41 am Said:
This is an interesting article. Insight from Bill Clinton – Big Doggie! thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/bill-clinton-the-time-is-now/
Reply

Marcia, on August 14th, 2009 at 10:42 am Said:
This is an interesting piece. Insight from Bill Clinton – AKA Big Dog. And delivered in Pittsburgh too!
thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/bill-clinton-the-time-is-now/
Reply

wmcb, on August 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am Said:
I find it very interesting that two strangers show up posting a nearly identical comment to tell us all that “Big Dawg!” just loves him some Obamacare.

Very interesting indeed.

Considering that most of that article consists not of quotes from Bill, but “interpretation” of what he said by the author, I’ll withhold judgement. But you know what? PUMA’s, as much as we love our Bill, think for ourselves. And I have no problem telling Big Dawg he’s full of shit if and when he is on occasion.
Reply

wmcb, on August 14th, 2009 at 11:00 am Said:
That’s what you get for advertising on Craigslist. Axelrod should screen his applicants better. Maybe put “ability not to be obvious” in the job requirements.
Reply

bostonboomer, on August 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am Said:
Hmmm…veeerrrrryyy interesting! But what kind of name is Tommie? Are we being Astroturfed by a kindergarten class? Axelrod must be getting desperate.
Reply

I watched Prez Clinton on C-pan last night and as usaul he spoke without notes and without teleprompter for 1hr to a binvh of libs who probably all voted against his wife..Yet, they , by and large, loved him. He even shot down the myths on Hillary and healthcare and explained why ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell, and “DOMA” were the best he could have done given the climate 16 yrs ago and lack of votes…he also said he hated it. This man and Hillaru lead the way for a two bit punk like Obama to steal the credit on many of the same issues….

wbboei…speaking of old money, have you ever seen the New Yorker cartoon which, judging by the clothing probably was published in the early 30’s, depicting an elderly gent in striped trousers, black coat seated in an upholstered chair having a conversation with a small boy in knee pants sitting on a footstool at his feet. He is saying to the little fellow, “New money, my boy, is old money that got away.”

The website’s large-type headline announces: “Work to Pass Obama’s Healthcare Plan and Get Paid to Do it! $10-15 hr!”

It’s a web ad on Craigslist: “You can work for change. Join motivated staff around the country working to make change happen. You can make great friends and money along the way. Earn $400-$600 a week.”
&&&&&&&

I wonder how this money pipeline flows from?

What organization(s) are paying these volunteers?
Do they qualify for grants, on the premise that they a) do good things, b) create jobs?
If so, are such grants coming from the Federal government, or state, or local?

It would not surprise me that “stimulus” package money is being used to hire people to promote various further stimulus plans. This what the health care overhaul probably will wind up being, another give-away to corporate donors, and “stimulus” being an attempt to buy votes and curry favor.

This is what was so outrageous about the W. administration, using government’s leverage to tilt the political landscape.

Yet it was only a couple of years ago that there was talk of a permanent Republican majority. Now the talk is the other way. When you get too cocky, you can delude yourself that you are invincible. Where’s Rove now? Oh yeah, writing for the WSJ worrying about a PRESIDENT WITH TOO MUCH POWER WHO IS OUT OF CONTROL. (And I agree with Mr. Melonhead).

White House Reviews Names of Recipients of Unsolicited E-Mail on Health Care
After a testy exchange between FOX News and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs over an e-mail list, the White House says it will review names of recipients who received unsolicited information to determine how they ended up on a distribution list sent out by the East Wing.

FOXNews.com
Friday, August 14, 2009

The White House on Friday was looking over a list of names submitted by FOX News of people who say they received unsolicited e-mails on health care from the White House, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign or his political organization, Organizing for America.

After a testy exchange Thursday between FOX News’ Major Garrett and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs over the e-mail list, the White House said it would review some of the names of recipients to determine how they ended up on the distribution list.

FOX News obtained permission from some of the e-mailers who sent their concerns to FOX News and forwarded them to the White House. No explanation has yet been received.

The White House maintains a massive e-mail list as part of its effort to promote its position on pressing issues. On Thursday, senior adviser David Axelrod used the list to send out a “chain” e-mail asking supporters of health care reforms backed by the administration to forward his rebuttal to criticism circulating on the Internet.

The mail offered reasons to support Obama’s agenda and tried to debunk what the White House decries as myths in the health care debate. Axelrod wrote that opponents are relying on tactics including “viral e-mails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies.” “So let’s start a chain of e-mail of our own,” he said, inviting supporters to forward a message countering claims that Obama’s plans would lead to rationing, encourage euthanasia or deplete veterans’ health care.

But some people who received the e-mails directly from the White House forwarded them to FOX News and asked how they ended up on the list when they’ve never been in communication with the Obama administration. Some wondered if visiting the White House Web site automatically places them on an e-mail distribution list.

Gibbs told Garrett on Thursday that he couldn’t respond until he saw who received the e-mail because he doesn’t have “omnipotent clarity.”

Asked whether the White House seeks other pieces of information to identify those who might be curious about health care even though they have never signed up for e-mails or visited the Web site, Gibbs said he would have to see the e-mails to know.

Pressed to explain why he couldn’t answer, Gibbs said “Well, I hesitate to give you an answer because you might impugn the motives of the answer.”

“Why would you say that?” Garrett asked incredulously.

“Because of the way you phrased your follow up. I’d have to look at what you got, Major. I appreciate the fact that I have omnipotent clarity as to what you’ve received in your e-mail box today,” Gibbs said.

“You don’t have to have omnipotent clarity. You don’t have to impugn anything,” Garrett fired back. “I’m telling you what I got: e-mails from people who said I never asked anything from the White House.”

Another poll by AOL on Hillary’s “behavior” in Congo!!! Not one day has gone by without them haqving some stupid poll or article attacking her, yet, have not seen one positive article on what she has accomplished.

Just found some news that annoys me no end. I think we are messing where we shouldn’t be messing, both in a moral sense and in a financial sense. And who knows what reverse engineering of the thing will do to us…. What say you?

By Jim Finkle

BOSTON (Reuters) – The U.S. government is covertly testing technology in China and Iran that lets residents break through screens set up by their governments to limit access to news on the Internet.

lil ole grape Says:
August 14th, 2009 at 11:58 am
wbboei…speaking of old money, have you ever seen the New Yorker cartoon which, judging by the clothing probably was published in the early 30’s, depicting an elderly gent in striped trousers, black coat seated in an upholstered chair having a conversation with a small boy in knee pants sitting on a footstool at his feet. He is saying to the little fellow, “New money, my boy, is old money that got away.”
————————————————–
No I have not. But is true. Typically, they want it all.

There is old money and there is really old money. The Princess of Monaco, the late actress Grace Kelly was part of a line that went back to an aid to William Penn. I met a cousin of hers last week, but someone else pointed this out to me. Part of the old Main Line. We organizations like the DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution) and two centuries ago perhaps the Society of Cincinatus. But it turns out that there are great families whose go all the way back to the earliest Colonial Times meaning the 1600s– for those who care about such things.

A friend of mine who is a university professor, award winning writer and astute political observer visited an enclave in Michigan in July of this year. She spoke with a cross section of middle-aged people about The Great Obama. They did not love him like Big Media does. Rather, they felt disempowered, targeted by him, and silenced within their own families. They worried that under his benighted leadership we will forever lose the America we knew and loved. Moreover, they were disenchanted with the Republican response. They want strong opposition leadership plus talking points now before it is too late
.
I am an independent voter. I have supported both political parties at different times. My fundamental concern now is the country. I have studied Mr. Obama and his methods in that light– with growing apprehension. I have discussed my concerns with others who love this country. One of them is a Cuban-American with a Princeton education, a Wall Street resume and deep insight into how one man can rise from relative obscurity and subjugate an entire nation. . .

When we look at The Great Obama we do not see the transcendental post racial figure that Big Media worships robotically ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Instead, we perceive a Machiavellian Chicago politician joined at the hip to a teleprompter who is hell bent on serving the interests of big business, and his own megalomania—too often at the expense of ordinary people. If you look behind his grinning mask this becomes obvious. And now, under cover of crisis, he is making radical changes to the traditions which have long defined us as a nation.

Therefore, it is imperative for the American People to understand who Mr. Obama really is; to ignore what he says and focus on what he does; and to dead reckon where he is taking this country. Then, we must rely on the opposition party to get its act together, to move beyond Bush and to select a candidate who will faithfully represent this country. The rise of The Great Obama calls to mind the prophetic words of Jefferson: “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

From ‘Yes, We Can,’ to ‘No! Don’t!’
Obama turns out to be brilliant at becoming,
not being, president.
==============================

Don’t strain the system. Don’t add to the national stress level. Don’t pierce when you can envelop. Don’t show even understandable indignation when you can show legitimate regard. Realize that the ties that bind still bind but have grown dryer and more worn with time. They need to be strengthened, not strained.

Govern knowing we are a big, strong, mighty nation, a colossus that is, however, like all highly complex, highly wired organisms, fragile, even at places quite delicate. Don’t overburden or overexcite the system. America used to have fringes, one over here and the other over there. The fringes are growing. The fringes have their own networks. All sorts of forces exist to divide us. Try always to unite.

These are things one always wants people currently rising in government to know deep in their heads and hearts. They are the things the young, fierce staffers in any new White House, and the self-proclaimed ruthless pragmatists in this one, need to hear, be told or be reminded of.

***
The big, complicated, obscure, abstruse, unsettling and ultimately unhelpful health-care plans, proposals and ideas keep rolling out of Washington. Five bills, thousands of pages, “as it says on page 346, paragraph 3, subsection D.” No one knows what will be passed, what will make its way through House-Senate “conference.” They don’t even know what the president wants, what his true agenda is. He never seems to be leveling, only talking. Everything’s open to misdirection and exaggeration, and everything, people fear, will come down to some future bureaucrat’s interpretation of paragraph 3, subsection D, part 22.

What a disaster this health-care debate is. It strains, stresses and pierces, it unnecessarily agitates and is doomed to be the cause of further agitation. Who doubts the final bill will be something between a pig in a poke and three-card Monte?

Which is too bad, because our health care system actually needs to be made better.

***
There are smart and experienced people who say whatever the mess right now, the president will get a bill of some sort because he has the brute numeric majority. A rising number say no, this thing has roused such ire he won’t get much if anything. I don’t know, but this is true: If he wins it, will be a victory not worth having. It will have cost too much. It has lessened the thing an admired president must have from the people, and that is trust.

It is divisive save in one respect. The Obama White House has done the near impossible: It has united the Republican Party. Social conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians—they’re all against the health-care schemes as presented so far. They’re shoulder-to-shoulder at the barricade again.

***
The president’s town hall meeting on Tuesday in Portsmouth, N.H., was supposed to be an antidote to the fractious town halls with members of Congress the past weeks. But it was not peaceful, only somnolent. Actually it was a bit of a disaster. It looked utterly stacked, with softball after softball thrown by awed and supportive citizens. When George W. Bush did town halls like that—full of people who’d applaud if he said tomorrow we bring democracy to Saturn—it was considered a mark of manipulation and insecurity. And it was. So was Mr. Obama’s.

The first question was from a Democratic state representative from Dover named Peter Schmidt. He began, “One of the things you’ve been doing in your campaign to change the situation is you’ve been striving for bipartisanship.”

“Right,” the president purred. They were really holding his feet to the fire.

“My question is,” Mr. Schmidt continued, “if the Republicans actively refuse to participate in a reasonable way with reasonable proposals, isn’t it time to just say ,’We’re going to pass what the American people need and what they want without the Republicans’?”

Stop, Torquemada, stop!

The president said it would be nice to pass a bill in a “bipartisan fashion” but “the most important thing is getting it done for the American people.”

Then came a grade-school girl. “I saw a lot of signs outside saying mean things about reforming health care” she said. Here one expected a gentle and avuncular riff on the wonderful and vivid expressions of agreement and disagreement to be seen in a vibrant democracy. But no. The president made a small grimace. “I’ve seen some of those signs,” he said. There’s been a “rumor” the House voted for “death panels” that will “pull the plug on grandma,” but it’s all a lie.

I’m glad he’d like psychiatric care included in future coverage, because after that answer that child may need therapy.

***
The president seemed like a man long celebrated as being very good at politics—the swift rise, the astute reading of a varied electorate—who is finding out day by day that he isn’t actually all that good at it. In this sense he does seem reminiscent of Jimmy Carter, who was brilliant at becoming president but not being president. (Actually a lot of them are like that these days.)

Also, something odd. When Mr. Obama stays above the fray, above the nitty-gritty of specifics, when he confines his comments on health care to broad terms, he more and more seems . . . pretty slippery. In the town hall he seemed aware of this, and he tried to be very specific about the need for this aspect of a plan, and the history behind that proposal. And yet he seemed even more slippery. When he took refuge in the small pieces of his argument, he lost the major threads; when he addressed the major threads, he seemed almost to be conceding that the specifics don’t hold.

When you seem slippery both in the abstract and the particular, you are in trouble.

***
Looking back, a key domestic moment in this presidency occurred only eight days after his inauguration, when Mr. Obama won House passage of his stimulus bill. It was a bad bill—off point, porky and philosophically incoherent. He won 244-188, a rousing victory for a new president. But he won without a single Republican vote. That was the moment the new division took hold. The Democrats of the House pushed it through, and not one Republican, even those from swing districts, even those eager to work with the administration, could support it.

This, of course, was politics as usual. But in 2008 people voted against politics as usual.

It was a real lost opportunity. It marked the moment congressional Republicans felt free to be in full opposition. It gave congressional Democrats the impression that they were in full control, that no one could stop their train. And it was the moment the president, looking at the lay of the land, seemed to reveal he would not govern in a vaguely center-left way, as a unifying figure even if a beset one being beaten ’round the head by the left, but in a left way, without the modifying “center.” Or at least as one who happily cedes to the left in Congress each day.

Things got all too vividly divided. It was a harbinger of the health care debate.

I always now think of a good president as sitting at the big desk and reaching out with his long arms and holding on to the left, and holding on to the right, and trying mightily to hold it together, letting neither spin out of control, holding on for dear life. I wish we were seeing that. I don’t think we are.

SANTA MARIA, Cape Verde — After a grueling seven-nation, 11-day trip, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wrapped up her Africa tour on Friday by reaffirming her promise to renovate American relations with the continent.

“I leave Africa after this remarkable trip even more committed,” Mrs. Clinton said before leaving Cape Verde. “I have seen the joy and energy Africans have, evidenced not just by the boogieing, but by the hard work and perseverance,” she said, referring to a recent comment from her husband, former President Bill Clinton, that she knew how to “boogie” with African dancers.

“And we’ve seen the worst humanity can do to itself,” she added, presumably referring to Congo, where Mrs. Clinton met some of the victims of the various armed groups that continue to rape, kill and brutalize civilians there.

Mrs. Clinton seemed satisfied that she had accomplished her mission: strengthening American relations with crucial allies on the continent, like Nigeria and South Africa, and sending a message of “tough love,” as she called it, to nations like Kenya and Nigeria.

Over all, she said, the United States wants to work more closely with African nations as partners, not simply as a patron or dispenser of aid. In exchange, she said, African leaders must deliver democracy and good government.

Mrs. Clinton said her focus on Africa would not end with her return to Washington, noting that her staff would continue monitoring the issues she addressed on her tour. She also pointed to Cape Verde, her final stop and a set of islands best known for their beaches and enormous tourist hotels, as an example of what good leadership can do.

“This is possible,” she said. “You create not just economic growth but a sense of human dignity and possibility.”

Kenya. South Africa. Angola. Congo. Nigeria. Liberia. And finally Cape Verde. The trip took Mrs. Clinton through some of Africa’s most promising countries — and some of its most troubled ones. In Kenya, she pushed for the government to prosecute perpetrators of the postelection violence last year. In South Africa, the big issue was Zimbabwe and how the South African government should do more to help ease the crisis there. In Angola, the theme was good governing practices and oil. In Congo, Mrs. Clinton was passionate about the need to end Congo’s rape epidemic.

In Nigeria, Mrs. Clinton pressed for electoral changes. In Liberia, she praised the country’s president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the only woman in Africa to be elected head of state.

The Liberian visit had a warmth, almost like a meeting of long-lost cousins. Liberia was founded in the 19th century by freed American slaves, and the country’s flag, the people’s names and even the police uniforms were all reminiscent of the American versions. Mrs. Clinton received possibly her most exuberant welcome there, and a Liberian man with a long wooden horn followed her around most of the visit, blowing out loud, funny noises whenever she said something striking.

“I love that — the horn — I want to take that guy with me wherever I go,” she said.

For Cape Verde, Mrs. Clinton seemed to have few issues to address. For once, she said, she had a cheat sheet on the country that included a list of far more positives than negatives. The country has fewer than 500,000 people and has escaped the turmoil that has engulfed so much of Africa. The all-inclusive, poolside buffet resorts here feel like something found in Cancún or the Bahamas.

SAL, Cape Verde — Hillary Clinton has set a new tone in US relations with Africa on a whirlwind seven-nation trip, sometimes ruffling feathers with a tough love message that Africans must tackle their own problems.

On her longest trip yet as secretary of state, Clinton crisscrossed the continent for 11 days from an AIDS clinic in rural South Africa to the war zone of Democratic Republic of Congo to a roundtable with Nigerian faith leaders.

To the diverse audiences, Clinton delivered a consistent message — the fate of Africa is up to the Africans and that the United States, while ready to work with them, has no “magic wand” to solve endemic problems.

She was taking on the road a message delivered by President Barack Obama on a visit last month in Ghana, where the first African-American US leader urged Africans to stand up and take charge of their future.

Clinton, who ended her trip Friday here in the small Atlantic archipelago of Cape Verde, tailored the theme to each country — urging Kenya’s rival leaders to reconcile and warning Nigeria that corruption was threatening the government’s very legitimacy.

“The Obama administration both in the president’s speech (in Ghana) and in my visit, have given a message of tough love,” she said during a press conference Friday with Cape Verde’s Prime Minister Jose Maria Neves.

“We are not sugarcoating the problems, we are not shying away from them, our emphasis is to help to channel the hopes and aspirations of the people of Africa, in a way that changes the direction of their countries.”

While Clinton faced little outright hostility on her trip — in Liberia, she was greeted by hundreds of cheering women calling her “our iron lady” — she faced some tough questioning.

Kenya’s Prime Minister Raila Odinga bristled at US “lecturing,” although a US official dismissed his remarks as public posturing. In Nigeria, This Day newspaper quoted the ruling People’s Democratic Party condemning Clinton, saying she was being misinformed by political rivals with an “axe to grind.”

And in the Democratic Republic of Congo, students grilled her on past Western exploitation of Africa in a testy exchange in which Clinton made her now famous remark snapping at a student who sought her husband’s views.

Tom Wheeler, research associate at the South African Institute of International Affairs, said that the new US administration has produced “a shift in style and substance” with Africa. “Africans have always expected countries outside the continent to solve their problems, while simultaneously resenting that aid dependency,” he said. “Blaming foreign exploitation for Africa’s woes is a cop-out. Africans have to accept responsibility for their own destiny and I think the Obama-Clinton messages are correct.”

Clinton came armed with examples she repeated throughout the trip — pointing to India as proof that democracy works in developing countries and hailing Botswana for ensuring its mineral wealth funds a first-class infrastructure.

Unlike many Western visitors, Clinton came with no major funding promises although she stepped up money to fight AIDS in Angola and to help stop a rape epidemic in DR Congo.

Aides said the Obama administration’s signature initiative for Africa was a 20 billion-dollar plan by the Group of Eight rich nations to boost agriculture and let Africans end their own hunger problems rather than rely on aid. Most of the money, however, is yet to be appropriated.

AIDS activists have also criticized Obama for not raising the level of funding to treat and prevent the disease. Former president George W. Bush allocated 15 billion dollars in an emergency AIDS plan that even his rivals praise as a major accomplishment.

Stephen Morrison, an Africa expert at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that Bush had started setting the new tone on Africa but that it carried a new force coming from Obama. He said it was now up to US officials to work with Africa on moving ahead with reforms. “The reception in Africa will be mixed,” he said, but added: “I believe the tough messages, if followed with consistent policies, will win applause in much of Africa.”

In the 48 hours of June 15-16, President Obama lost the health-care debate. First, a letter from the Congressional Budget Office to Sen. Edward Kennedy reported that his health committee’s reform bill would add $1 trillion in debt over the next decade. Then the CBO reported that the other Senate bill, being written by the Finance Committee, would add $1.6 trillion. The central contradiction of Obamacare was fatally exposed: From his first address to Congress, Obama insisted on the dire need for restructuring the health-care system because out-of-control costs were bankrupting the Treasury and wrecking the U.S. economy — yet the Democrats’ plans would make the problem worse.

Accordingly, Democrats have trotted out various tax proposals to close the gap. Obama’s idea of limits on charitable and mortgage-interest deductions went nowhere. As did the House’s income tax surcharge on millionaires. And Obama dare not tax employer-provided health insurance because of his campaign pledge of no middle-class tax hikes.

Desperation time. What do you do? Sprinkle fairy dust on every health-care plan, and present your deus ex machina: prevention.

Free mammograms and diabetes tests and checkups for all, promise Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, writing in USA Today. Prevention, they assure us, will not just make us healthier, it also “will save money.”

Obama followed suit in his Tuesday New Hampshire town hall, touting prevention as amazingly dual-purpose: “It saves lives. It also saves money.”

Reform proponents repeat this like a mantra. Because it seems so intuitive, it has become conventional wisdom. But like most conventional wisdom, it is wrong. Overall, preventive care increases medical costs.

This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: “Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness.”

How can that be? If you prevent somebody from getting a heart attack, aren’t you necessarily saving money? The fallacy here is confusing the individual with society. For the individual, catching something early generally reduces later spending for that condition. But, explains Elmendorf, we don’t know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case, “it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway.” And this costs society money that would not have been spent otherwise.

Think of it this way. Assume that a screening test for disease X costs $500 and finding it early averts $10,000 of costly treatment at a later stage. Are you saving money? Well, if one in 10 of those who are screened tests positive, society is saving $5,000. But if only one in 100 would get that disease, society is shelling out $40,000 more than it would without the preventive care.

That’s a hypothetical case. What’s the real-life actuality? In Obamaworld, as explained by the president in his Tuesday town hall, if we pour money into primary care for diabetics instead of giving surgeons “$30,000, $40,000, $50,000” for a later amputation — a whopper that misrepresents the surgeon’s fee by a factor of at least 30 — “that will save us money.” Back on Earth, a rigorous study in the journal Circulation found that for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, “if all the recommended prevention activities were applied with 100 percent success,” the prevention would cost almost 10 times as much as the savings, increasing the country’s total medical bill by 162 percent. That’s because prevention applied to large populations is very expensive, as shown by another report Elmendorf cites, a definitive review in the New England Journal of Medicine of hundreds of studies that found that more than 80 percent of preventive measures added to medical costs.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be preventing illness. Of course we should. But in medicine, as in life, there is no free lunch. The idea that prevention is somehow intrinsically economically different from treatment — that treatment increases costs and prevention lowers them — is simply nonsense. Prevention is a wondrous good, but in the aggregate it costs society money. Nothing wrong with that. That’s the whole premise of medicine. Treating a heart attack or setting a broken leg also costs society. But we do it because it alleviates human suffering. Preventing a heart attack with statins or breast cancer with mammograms is costly. But we do it because it reduces human suffering.

However, prevention is not, as so widely advertised, healing on the cheap. It is not the magic bullet for health-care costs.

You will hear some variation of that claim a hundred times in the coming health-care debate. Whenever you do, remember: It’s nonsense — empirically demonstrable and CBO-certified.

That has been my feel all along, when OMB and CBO told the truth on the health care reform cost to congress, OO’s medical reform was toast. We will get something, it might give him a spike in the polls, but then when the next reports on unemployment, and the economy come out, and the people see the price tag (borrow from China to fund our health care reform), the cycle will be complete. Many of those who could not see through him the first time, or felt he was the lesser of two evils, will be looking for a new Messiah.

Your post at 2:20 is brilliant and sums up much of what i have been feeling.

I was wondering, today, how in the world this country manages to (s)elect so may fools to the top office. Just as Bush stole the 2000 (s)election, with the conspicuous cave-in of Gore and crew, BO stole the 2008 (s)election with the even more despicable impotence of the rethugs conspiring with . . . who . . . ?

Has this been posted? I just ran across an article talking about obvious pro-Obama plants at the Obama Healthcare town halls. This article talks about a recent Sheila Jackson Lee town hall where an Obama campaign volunteer pretended to be a doctor (claimed she was when asking a question) and her companion was a known campaign worker who ran an Obama campaign office complete with Che Guevera flag.

How obvious can they get–did they think no one would catch on? Unbelievable!

Speaker Nancy Pelosi was once a fan of angry protesters at public events — when her party was in the minority.

In this video making the rounds (yes, sent to the media by Republicans), Pelosi tells some anti-war protesters at an event in January 2006 that she’s a “fan of disruptors.” She talks back to the protesters, saying “I understand your anger.” She eventually invites the anti-war folks to the front of the room to hold their protest signs.

The video probably wouldn’t be resurfacing if Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) hadn’t declared in a USA Today op-ed that they believed “drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.” And the backlash on that op-ed shows just how a few words can completely change the narrative on a political issue.

BTW, Hillary’s “outburst” hasn’t hurt her popularity. The new Fox News poll has her approval rating at 66 percent. That means either 1) the public has more important things to worry about right now or 2) they know the media was overrreacting, as usual.

As said earlier, your paper: “The Deconstruction of Obama” maintains the accuracy of a sequenced arpeggio leading to the full fleshing out of a writhing Obama laid bare as the “hollow shibboleth”circumscribed by indisputable facts.

Your post at 2:20 is brilliant and sums up much of what i have been feeling.

I was wondering, today, how in the world this country manages to (s)elect so may fools to the top office. Just as Bush stole the 2000 (s)election, with the conspicuous cave-in of Gore and crew, BO stole the 2008 (s)election

=============

As I’ve said, one pattern I see is that when a REAL and EFFECTIVE reformer (or even a geek who is likely to look into things) comes along — the media go after them. Regardless of party. Palin, McCain, the Clintons, Gore, Goldwater….

Krauthammer bullshitting:
Think of it this way. Assume that a screening test for disease X costs $500 and finding it early averts $10,000 of costly treatment at a later stage. Are you saving money? Well, if one in 10 of those who are screened tests positive, society is saving $5,000. But if only one in 100 would get that disease, society is shelling out $40,000 more than it would without the preventive care.

==================

Most of those tests IF WIDELY APPLIED and mass produced would become MUCH CHEAPER. Test kits for diabetes are now about $20.00 at Walmart for an AiC and $20 for 50 spot check fingersticks. Things like that used to be VERY expensive in the doctor’s office.

Even more so for imaaging scans I expect such as MRI, CT, ultrasound. The machines are sitting there costing money whether used or not. Computer programs are being developed to READ the results so you don’t have to pay a human for that.

Krauthammer’s not even MENTIONING how the cost comes down when massproduced — shows him dishonest.

It took just a moment for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to successfully grab the attention of Africans, speaking in a voice that many could find respectful and galvanizing even as she broached old complaints about corruption, bad governance and human rights violations.

In Nigeria, her third-to-last stop on an 11-day tour that ended Friday, Clinton acknowledged that democracy was still evolving even in the United States, citing the George W. Bush-Al Gore election controversy from 2000. The reference to less-than-perfect events back home acknowledged to Africa’s leaders that democracy is a work in progress in every corner of the world.

Democracy isn’t easy, so problems are to be expected.

Africa’s leaders, even the less autocratic ones, sneer at patronizing foreigners. They have often used this perceived arrogance to divert attention from legitimate issues outsiders raise.

Clinton’s straight talk denies Africa’s corrupt governments that opportunity. It also addresses critics’ doubts about whether her strong personality could fit in the highly subtle world of diplomacy. Her Africa tour ends as a diplomatic coup.

As Clinton said in a major speech in Kenya, the U.S. is now seeking Africa as a partner instead of patron. Clinton seemed to read the minds of Africans who, correctly or not, believe that U.S. transactions with Africa are often disrespectful. Her candor disarmed them.

Good Morning. One thingI always felt about HRCs speeches as that you really laid it on the line. After three speeches of OO, and his promising everything to everyone, and a few of his back door discussions, you knew he was a fraud. I still don’t understand the Dims thinking he would be better than McCain. To me Person, and their experience and abilities, have alway been more important than party.

Arizaon Reps are publishing a haggered photo of OO with a cigarette dangling out of his mouth. People are upset that the Pontiff is being shown this way, Ah, showing that he actually smokes and might no be who we thought he was.

They say the photo is an old one Doctored, but he admits that he actually does sneak a few, while he tells the rest of us that smoking is bad for us.

I guess if he is still doing it, I don’t consider it a misrepresentation. However, even thought he is smoking, they just have not caught him at it (great secret service no doubt). However, the image is causing a stir.

It’s kind of like the boy who cried wolf. One lie, although bad for a potus, he can get away with. When he lies every minute on the hour, it gets to the point that no one believes anything that comes out of his mouth.

I wouldn’t have a problem with him saying he still smokes but is trying to quit. I know many people who have struggled in the same way. But he should be setting a better example.

There in lies the problem, they are lying to the public about it, saying he has quit, then admitting he has not. End result is a better case for not trusting anything he says. You are right, if he was upfront about his addiction, many would understand, but he hids it and lies about it.

I really think he has a health risk. I live with a former smoker, and he fights the health issue everyday. I really don’t believe his health reports, and with the stress he is under, I think he is at great risk. Of course, you don’t wish the health risk on anyone, and I think he is like many others who really don’t understand the devistating health risks until something happens to him. With mine it was a heart attack at 38, and bypass surgery.

turndownobama @ 1:05 There is no way in hell that a machine is ever going to “read” your MRI or Cat Scan all by itself. If they develop one that they think can do it, good luck with that. I for one would never trust a diagnosis given me by one.

Sorry, but whoever is telling you that doesn’t know what they are talking about. It takes trained human eyes, with the JUDGEMENT to understand the implications of what they are looking at. Medical imaging films are not a cut-and-dried, positive vs. negative kind of test. An actual thinking brain has to interpret what they are seeing, and weigh whether it’s concerning or not.

The technology being developed is intended as an AID to radiologists in isolating pixel anomalies, so that they can do a better job of interpreting the scan, and not miss things. You will still need a human.

While I don’t know anything about medical equipment I would imagine reading the images is an ‘art’ something like the difference between a trained instrumentalist vs. a synthesizer with no human oversight.

Recently I had a couple of MRI’s and upon a second look, another radiologist(?) discovered stuff the first had missed which turns out to be very important for my diagnosis.

What about rounding up all the centrist and moderate blogs and trying to start an on line independent party geared for 2012? Start interviewing possible candidates…etc. The Hillary voters against Obama got alot of media attention during the campaign. Isn’t it possible for powerful blogs to get attention again.

It was funny that Obots were described as Whole Foods nation and now the Whole Foods CEO wrote an oped critical of Obama healthcare and Obots are protesting and threatening to go elsewhere for their arugula and organic veggies.
—————

# Carol Says:
August 15th, 2009 at 11:22 am

What about rounding up all the centrist and moderate blogs and trying to start an on line independent party geared for 2012? Start interviewing possible candidates…etc. The Hillary voters against Obama got alot of media attention during the campaign. Isn’t it possible for powerful blogs to get attention again.